The federal government shutdown is in its second week with no sign of an end to the impasse.

President Trump continues to amass executive authority and is deploying military troops into Democratic led cities.

Can Congress get it together to pass a spending bill?

Does it have any desire to check or balance presidential power?

Senator Lisa murkowski is in the thick of multiple debates on Capitol Hill.

She joins us today for talk of Alaska.

Talk of Alaska is brought to you in part by the law firm of Landy, Bennett Blumstein attorneys who know the people, businesses, tribes, and communities of Alaska.

Landy.

Bennett Blumstein online at LBB lawyers.com.

When you choose USAA, you're investing in more than a degree.

You're investing in your future.

Life doesn't always follow one path, and neither does your education.

With over 100 academic programs designed to meet real world needs and flexible online or in-person courses, USAA is built for where you are and where you're going.

Make your impact at USAA.

Apply today.

This message, sponsored by the University of Alaska Anchorage.

The views expressed on this program are those of the participants and not necessarily those of Alaska Public Media.

This station or its underwriters from Alaska Public Media.

It's talk of Alaska.

I'm Lori Lori Townsend.

President Trump is pushing against constitutional limits to his authority.

He has federalized National Guard troops and deployed them in Democrat led cities to quell what he says are war ravaged communities.

The president also continues to deport thousands of non-citizens and threatens to fire federal workers rather than just furlough them during the shutdown.

Can he do these things?

What can Congress do if a president exceeds his authority?

Senator Lisa murkowski has served as one of Alaska's two U.S.

senators for the past 23 years.

And she joins us on the line from Washington, D.C.. Hello, Senator Murkowski.

Hey, good morning, Lori.

How are you?

I am well, thank you so much for taking time to be on with us today.

Yeah, yeah.

Thank you.

You can also join our discussion today.

Alaskans.

Do you have concerns about how the ongoing shutdown could affect your family or community?

What do you want to see Congress do to find more compromise and consensus rather than deepening divisions?

You can call us statewide at one 804 788255.

That's 1-800-478-8255.

In Anchorage, the local number is 90755084225508422.

You can also email talk at Alaska public.org, as several people already have this morning.

Senator, is the gap between Republicans and Democrats on spending priorities closing at all?

What are you seeing in the standoff, and how do you think it can be resolved?

Well, I think you've used the appropriate word for things.

As of this afternoon, Lori, it is a bit of a standoff.

We have had, four, five now, votes on whether or not to accept the Republicans, clean short term CR that would take us through a November 21st.

And then the Democrats, proposal, which is a shorter term.

CR but, quite an expansive, list of requirements.

Many things that were part of the, the reconciliation bill as well as, support for for addressing the, Affordable Care Act, premium tax subsidies.

So I wish that I could tell you that as of this Tuesday afternoon, I felt we were in a better place.

What I can share is that there are good, honest, discussions that are going on by by members, not only, here in the House, but with our.

Excuse me, not only here in the Senate, but with our House counterparts, where we're trying to figure out, you know, can we can we get this off of dead center?

Because there is no win, in my view, for either side.

There is no win for anybody in a government shutdown.

So what do we need to do to to break through this impasse?

I've been involved in more than my share of government shutdowns, and I have always been in that mix of folks that are trying to get us to a better place where we're doing our job, we're processing our appropriations bills, we're keeping the government open, we're paying our military.

We're making sure that our government is functioning.

And that's what I'm trying to do right now.

And you mentioned the Democrats want this, Affordable Care Act subsidies to be put in place.

Now, what do you hear from Republican colleagues about why they can't support extending the enhanced ACA subsidies after December?

A lot of people who buy individual plans will see their premiums become much more expensive, possibly doubling or higher the rate they'll have to pay.

On the one hand, continuing the enhanced subsidies would add 350 billion to the deficit.

Is cost the main objective?

Well, I think cost is absolutely a key issue $350 million.

This is this is not insignificant, right.

But it is also not insignificant what many, many families in Alaska may look to be paying once these subsidies expire.

And so, where we have the kind of the standoff I think right now is the Democrats proposal is permanently extending these, these enhanced premium tax credits.

And keep in mind that these enhancements were put in place, during Covid, there will still be the ACA subsidies, but it's these enhanced subsidies that we're talking about.

So they're asking for a permanent extension.

I have suggested that we need to avoid this cliff, which is coming, at the end of this year, and it will be a cliff that will result in real costs to Alaskans.

And and I do not take that lightly at all.

So what I'm trying to do is, is suggest that we can look at this and, and work towards some reforms.

There, there is there there is an issue when it comes to some of the waste, fraud and abuse.

When you have a big system where, you have those who may have, I don't like the word double dipping, but they've got ability to to be covered in, in, in a couple different accounts, which was not necessarily the point of these enhanced acres.

So let's take a look at that.

But let's not let's not allow this, this cliff to take everybody down.

So my proposal, is one that said a two year extension.

In the first year, everything remains the same.

So there is no there is no cliff.

People are able to to afford their, their their health care insurance.

And then in this second year, we can we can work in some reforms that we would agree as Republicans and Democrats, members of the Senate member, the House, that that we can address, that takes a little bit more time.

And I get that.

So you've got several different proposals that are out there.

And I think, my commitment that I would like to make sure that people are listening to, to talk of Alaska this morning, here is I get what this means to to go off this cliff.

I understand what it's going to mean to our families.

I want to avoid that.

But I also want to make sure that where we can do smart reforms that are going to address some of some of the areas where we know we don't we didn't get it right in the first place.

Deal with how how we pay for this, because that is an important consideration as well.

And, and allow for, for a glide path going forward.

So it's not something that can be done overnight.

This is something that I've been working on most of the summer and, continue to work in good faith with people on both sides of the aisle, and particularly so many in my conference who are looking at this and saying, when the Republicans are in in control of the House and the Senate and the white House and bad things happen to Americans, health care costs, they're going to blame us.

We need to address this.

We need to work on it.

We need to be doing it.

And I'm helping in that.

And are you hearing support for this idea that you put forward of a two year extension?

Well, to to put it directly, there is a many different proposals out there.

There are some who say, let's just do it a year.

I would suggest that it would be better to do it beyond just one year.

There are some who are saying, let's do it for four years.

Then you have a bill that is has been introduced, by, Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat from New Hampshire, that wants it permanent.

So there is there's a lot of of room for discussion about how long.

I don't think it's the how long.

That is a key part of it.

But what reforms we might want to put in it.

When I talk about reforms, I'm saying, you know, maybe, maybe you don't have those that are making over $200,000 be eligible for for these subsidy.

Let's let's look at the percent of, poverty level.

Let's look at, the percent of income.

And so these are some of the things that I think you've got a lot of good folks that are looking at and saying, how can how can we address, aspects of this program in a way that's smart?

And again, make sure that that people are going to continue to be able to afford their health care, particularly in a state like Alaska where our costs are already so high.

All right.

Thank you, Senator, for getting us started.

If you're just joining us, this is talk of Alaska and Senator Lisa murkowski as our guest today.

Senator, of course, we could spend the full hour talking about, insurance, health insurance and, and, what the way forward should be.

But there's so many other issues to get to.

The president is federal housing the Texas National Guard and deploying them to Chicago.

He says crime in the city justifies a military response.

The governor of Illinois calls it an invasion and says Trump is punishing states that didn't vote for him.

Earlier this summer, Marines were deployed to Los Angeles.

What do you think about this, these deployments of the U.S.

military to U.S.

cities?

Well, I have a problem in in deploying our military to, address, local law enforcement issues.

Now, it's not that we have not seen our military, our guard, called up, to to to be there to provide, support to our communities.

But it is typically done at the request of the governor, the governor says I need some help.

I need to have some additional resources.

That's the way it should work.

This issue, this matter has already been been called into question.

Question in terms of the legality, but kind of the legality of it aside, I think about think about just what is happening here, just bringing the military in, bringing the National Guard in for a limited period of time.

Does this really allow you to to address crime in your communities, for the long haul going forward, or is it just a, a temporary, a temporary infusion of additional resources, but you really addressed the broader issue of crime overall.

So I have I have concerns, again, about bringing in, our military, without the, without the consent, without the agreement, of a governor, and, and really taking over law the, the role of law enforcement at the direction of the president.

And whether it is whether it is in, in, in Portland or in Chicago or wherever the state may be.

Now, you may notice that it was down in, it was in Louisiana, that a Republican, governor has asked for, for additional resources from the National Guard.

That's that is, that is not an an inappropriate way to handle it.

But again, when you have the executive coming in and telling telling your states, this is what I'm going to I'm going to direct to you to solve this.

I don't think it's appropriate.

I've stated so your Republican colleagues in the Senate have been, as far as I know, pretty much silent about this use of the military on US soil.

Isn't it a Republican value to oppose federal overreach and insist on local governments as much as possible behind closed doors?

Are any of them saying they're worried about this, too, especially when Marines were deployed to Los Angeles?

Well, and it is, it's not only the federal overreach, issue.

Most Republicans I know are really big advocates of of states rights.

Right.

We want our, our state to to have that, that that ability to control what goes on in our states.

We don't in Alaska, we don't like the feds telling us, what it is that we we should be doing or must do.

So, yes, I think that there is a rub.

You're asking a question about whether whether there is a, whether there's a hesitancy or a reluctance to, to speak out.

I, I do think that, you have have many Republicans who are kind of walking a line here in terms of, trying to avoid, criticizing, or being skeptical of actions of the administration, of President Trump's actions.

They want to back their Republican, president.

And and I get that I want to support our Republican president when, when he's doing good things for us.

I mean, I, I had a conversation very recently about some of the things that we're working on on the resource side that I'm very, very supportive.

But, we should not we should not lose sight of the fact that, we too are duly elected by the people that we serve.

And, our job is to, is to, to, to basically, follow our constitutional role, which is to, to not only, represent those that we serve, but to uphold the Constitution and, be loyal and faithful to the same.

All right, let's go to the phones for a moment.

We're getting some calls stacked up with Alaskans who have questions.

Bill is in Anchorage.

Hello, Bill.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah.

Good morning.

I'm calling about the role of Russell Mott, the director of management and budget.

In all of this.

As you know, he wrote project 2025.

He has been responsible for the illegal impoundments and rescissions, and he has been at the heart of illegal firings, and threatening the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of federal employees, including thousands of your constituents.

Lisa murkowski.

It is patently obvious that there is no such thing as a deal as long as he's involved, because they're just going to renege on anything they don't like.

So will you commit to getting rid of Russ spot as any deal to open the government?

Or are you just going to continue, saying you oppose this but supporting it?

And I would remind you, you voted to confirm a spot.

So you're on the hook for the things he's done.

You're going to.

Yeah.

We're going to grow a backbone.

Or is it just talk?

Well, Bill, you know, Russ, Russ vote is is in a position of, of political power at the Office of Management and Budget.

And he is, certainly not, afraid to use that and not afraid of any criticism that comes, our way.

You you kind of directly ask the question, are we going to require that, he be gotten rid of in order to open up the government?

Given given the, the fact that this is the president's, nominee to be OMB and was confirmed by the Republicans in the House in the Republicans in the Senate, I don't see a scenario where we're going to get the government open by requiring that that, vote is no longer in that position.

I will tell you what I will do.

You've mentioned a couple matters.

Rescissions, are certainly one that I care about a great, great deal.

For those who are not familiar with it, when we as the as the Congress do what the Constitution tells us we do, which is authorized, which is the appropriations when we pass our appropriations bills and those are signed into law by the president, I expect that for the most part, those are to be respected.

And, and, and, and and we move on to the next, the next round of appropriations.

What we have seen with this administration and what we have seen specifically with Mr.. Vote is he has gone through and determined those parts of the appropriation that we passed into law and that was signed into law, that that he disagreed with, that he didn't like.

Or perhaps to your point, it was part of project 2025, such as getting rid of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

We saw that, in this effort to rescind, which was successful, I voted against it.

I was one of the very few people to vote against a very few Republicans to vote against that Rescissions bill, because that's our that's our role here.

We do our own rescissions within the, within the appropriations, committees ourselves.

But when you have OMB come in and, and basically you've taken a measure that required 60 votes to pass and just 50 votes to pull back on these measures, whether it's Corporation for Public Broadcasting or whether it is the foreign aid.

It is, in my view, it is not the role now, impoundment.

This is going to be challenged in the courts.

But we're we're also learning about something called a pocket rescission, which in my view is OMB doing an end run around our ability to even push back and vote against it.

So part of what I have proposed as a resolution to end this shutdown is a provision that says the administration cannot, cannot, utilize this this technique of, of pocket rescission and cannot move forward with rescissions on measures that we have just negotiated.

Just, just we'll have passed and, and hopefully will have signed into law by the president.

So it's about checks and, and right now, you might not like, you might not think that I have, much of a backbone, to your words, but I am one of the few Republicans that has actually pushed back, stood up and and said, this is unlawful.

And we as a legislative branch have have a role in denying the executive, what they're doing.

We're not going to wait.

I don't think that we should wait for the courts to resolve it.

I think we should just say no.

Unfortunately, I need more of my colleagues to agree with me.

All right.

Thank you, Bill, for the call.

Let's go to Bethel.

Andrew is in Bethel.

Hello.

With thousands of, federal employees in Alaska being furloughed, there were comments this morning by Speaker Johnson.

Just floated about not paying federal employees after furlough.

And let me did backtrack a few moments later.

I just wanted to know what tangible things you and your office are going to do.

Miss murkowski.

Yeah.

Where federal employees can get paid once the shutdown is done.

Yeah.

No, I appreciate this.

And this is really just very late breaking this this morning.

In prior shutdowns, if you are a federal employee, you have been either in furlough status or non furlough status.

It has been it has been understood that once the shutdown ends, you are paid.

It's unfortunate that there is this there is this period.

It's very unfortunate for many who are really strapped and going from paycheck to paycheck.

But you at least had that certainty.

Now, this morning, there is some question as to whether or not it's called the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019.

Whether or not it covers all furloughed employees automatically.

And so this is this is something that is, I think, a new interpretation.

And I, I, I literally have just, just this morning not only received the, the information from, from where OMB is coming from, but also the a more of a legal memo on it.

And, it, it is now suggesting that those who have been furloughed, the only, the only guarantee that they have that they will be paid is if appropriations are then enactment enacted after the shutdown is over, before it was automatic.

In other words, it didn't have to go back to be, authorized through appropriations.

So there is this discrepancy here.

I find this quite honestly very, very, unnerving to to see that they're suggesting that there might be a, there might be a loophole, and that our furloughed, federal employees would not automatically receive that, that back pay.

So it's, it's new.

We're going to try to get some clarity for it.

It would be the first time, I'll tell you this much.

It would be the first time that the federal employees, during a shutdown would not get would not be paid if, in fact, it was determined that, that this amendment that was enacted in 2019, is is if there's somehow a discrepancy here.

So, what I would ask is that you, check in on my website for updates, to this particular issue, my goal is going to be to make sure that anyone who has been on furlough status or non furlough status, that, that backpay come to you as quickly as possible once the government shut down is over.

All right.

Thank you for the question, Andrew.

Senator, the president just approved the more than 200 mile Ambler Road that would go through a section of gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and end near Ambler, where there are metal and mineral prospects.

Some local folks in the Kobuk Valley region want the potential for mining jobs.

Others worry about pressures on subsistence resources.

You're supportive of the president's actions here, but isn't there a lot of serious opposition from the region?

The Tanana Chiefs Conference opposes it.

Nana withdrew its support for the road proposal last year.

Who are you listening to that wants this road?

And what did you hear from Alaskans about it?

Yeah.

Well, as as as Alaskans are are ought to do.

Everybody weighs in.

This is we are not new to this issue.

The the road corridor that was, that was committed to in, Nilka in exchange for, for, conservation areas, in the region.

The law is pretty clear out there in terms of what was established.

Back, 40 plus years ago, during the Trump administration, you saw the first, the first, process of approval that moved forward.

The Biden administration comes in, scraps it and says, you didn't you didn't get enough, requisite input.

Now, what is happening is, is the Trump administration is saying where we're going back to where we were in 2020.

So it is it is a, a matter that has undergone great, public, input over the years.

And, and as your question is, is, is is phrased Lori, there are people on both sides of the issue.

There are communities who are very, very supportive of the road.

They feel it will bring economic opportunity to them.

And then there are those who are strongly opposed to it, concerned about, the impact that it may have on, on subsistence.

I want to make sure that we've got a good and a fair process where Alaskans, and particularly those from the regions, weigh in, believe me, I have had I have had members from villages all over the region.

Come in.

I have gone out to the region and visited with people in their home to, to hear and understand.

And so what we I think what we want to do as Alaskans, we want to be able to have those those opportunities for for an economy.

We want to be able to have the opportunities for a job.

We want to be able to support our country when it comes to to important minerals.

But we also want to make sure that development, is done right.

And, and in a way that is consistent with the environment, that's goi our task ahead of us.

All right.

Thank you for that answer.

And we need to take a quick break.

But our guest today on Talk of Alaska is Senator Lisa murkowski.

We'll be back after this short break as talk of Alaska continues to talk of Alaska is brought to you in part by your local public radio station.

October 9th is Pandas and Pans Awareness Day.

Did you know that a simple infection can give rise to medical disorders known as pandas and pans, featuring psychiatric symptoms, disordered eating, or tics?

Patients with these disorders usually have an abrupt onset of obsessive compulsive disorder and more northwest Pandas Pans network is a nonprofit serving Alaska that can help.

For more information, visit WTP dawg.

This message, sponsored by Northwest Pandas Pans Network.

Live.

Welcome back to Talk of Alaska.

Senator Lisa murkowski is our guest today.

Senator, you took a lot of heat for your vote on the reconciliation bill.

The president calls it big and beautiful.

Democrats have other names for it.

It cuts $1 trillion from Medicaid, does a lot of things that you don't like.

Talk about how you came to your decision to finally support it.

Yeah, well, it was pretty apparent.

In the early part of this year that there was going to be a Republican reconciliation bill.

When you think about previous administrations, new administrations coming in where they have, they have control of both houses, that's pretty much what happens around here.

It happened under the Biden administration, when you had, Democrat leadership in both the House and the Senate.

And so, we we were fully teed up to know that when President Trump came into office that we were going to see a Republican reconciliation package.

And so the real the real issue was going to be, what is this going to look like?

And, there were many things.

There are many things that, Alaskans came to me and said, wow, this is an opportunity here to really advance some of, of our Alaska specific priorities.

Whether it is additional, additional opportunities up in the National Petroleum Reserve, whether it is more that we can be doing, with, with Anwar, and the coastal plain, there were initiatives that that we looked at, particularly from the, from the resource development side and said, this is an opportunity here for Alaska.

But as with everything, there are things that are good, and you support and you work to help facilitate.

And then there are other things that, you look and say, this could have this could have, impact on Alaska.

That is not going to be good.

And, and when you when you can kind of see how this package comes together and you realize that there's going to be a bill that is going to pass with or without my support.

My job is to try to do everything that I can to, to make changes to those things that could have a negative impact to us in Alaska to to make it less, less harmful.

I could have I could have just taken a back step.

And when I, when it became apparent that there was going to be a, a focus on, on Medicaid, and we saw that coming out of of the House in order to, to get the, the that the, the budget number that they were aiming towards, they aimed at Medicaid.

And I could have said, wait, we can't touch Medicaid and move out of the discussions and, and then have Alaskans hit with, with, consequence to a program that is really very, very important to us in, in Alaska and the many who rely on, on Medicaid.

So I basically told my team, look, we might not like what we're seeing right now.

Our job every single day is to try to make this better for Alaskans.

And so when when it appeared that, that we were going to be facing, challenges with workforce requirements when it came to Medicaid as well as with Snap, I said, look, we we have areas of the state where there is there is nothing that would qualify or possibly be, counted as, as, as as as work under a federal system.

We have areas where our unemployment rate is, is, is, are so high that others can't even believe our statistics.

And so we needed to have some carve outs in areas where we don't have those economic opportunities.

We needed to make sure that that, for instance, those, Alaska Natives in, in many of these very small villages would not, would not be subject to certain of these requirements that they just simply could not And so it was an effort to, to make changes, positive changes that would either give us more resources or give us more time to comply.

And when I say more resources, the effort that I made to, to, to build and expand this rural health transformation Fund is, is, is is really very transformative in terms of the resources that will come to Alaska.

As one of the most rural, if not the most rural states.

And so it was it was not it was not easy because at the end, there were many things that I couldn't make any better than than what I was able to.

But I, I, I own my vote and I, I'm, I'm proud of the efforts that we made to to make improvement to the bill.

Now, the challenge to us and to, to those in this state is to make sure that we take full advantage of this, to make sure that we're use the state is using this time to get their systems up.

When you have a, when you have an IT system that that cannot handle the daily, the daily weight of getting Snap benefits out, to, to be able to process these.

I mean, that's, that's something that needs to be addressed.

Now, we need to make sure that we're, we're going to be taking advantage of the time that we have obtained with this bill and this and the provisions that are very unique to Alaska, to to make sure that not only are we ready when those when those deadlines come into place, but that, Alaskans are going to be better off.

My goal is to make sure that if there are workforce requirements that you must comply with in order to stay on, on Medicaid, that that you understand that we're able to work with, that you've got somebody who's that navigator who's going to walk you through it.

Last thing and I might say on this, and I think that this is important to underscore because because it I think it creates a level of confusion.

But when we're talking about things like the, the Medicaid and the and, and the Snap work requirements, the work requirements only apply to those covered by the Medicaid expansion, not by the the traditional Medicaid.

So traditional Medicaid is anyone who's 65 or older.

Children, pregnant women, individuals with disabilities, that that that population is not impacted at all by any of this.

It is it is the expansion population that is impacted.

And that population is low income adults ages 19 to 64 without dependents or disabilities.

And so I've heard from some people who have said, wait a minute, I'm, I'm, I'm 70 years old.

And, you know, I, I'm caring for my grandkids.

Are you now telling me that I, I've got to go out and, and get a job in order to qualify for for Medicaid and.

No.

So there's a I think there's a lot of, of confusion about who is, who is exempted and, and how they are exempted.

This is something that, myself, my team have been trying to reach out, trying to get around in the community, talking about exactly what this looks like, reminding them that these are, provisions that will come into play in, in 2027, in 2028.

But we got to get ready for them now again, to lessen the the burden and the impact to Alaskans.

Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy has changed a lot related to disease research funding, vaccine policy and leadership at the CDC.

Political appointees have replaced health professionals.

You helped get him confirmed.

Do you feel he misled you and other senators at his confirmation hearing?

What are your concerns about how this could affect Americans trust in how to best control disease outbreaks and protect public health?

Yeah, well, it's a good question.

And it's one that I was asked, when I was actually with Secretary Kennedy when he was up in this state this summer.

And I said with him sitting right next to me that, I disagree with the approach that he is taking.

Now with vaccines and what he has done, with the with the ACIp committee, the approach that he has taken where he says he needs to rebuild trust within the department and and so he's getting rid of of those who are have approach these issues with science.

And and I think a level of credibility.

And then he's putting his own people in.

I said that does not build trust.

That does not build credibility.

And and you ask the question whether I felt that he was keeping his commitment when when he was going through the confirmation process, I asked him pointedly about, about, vaccines, and about some of the recommendations, some of his prior statements versus where he, he intended to take it, where he had to be, confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services.

And he said, my focus is going to be on chronic diseases.

My focus is going to be why?

Why, as a nation that spends more on health care than any other country, we have some of the worst health care outcomes.

And I you know, you listen to that is like, yes, that's what we need to be focusing on.

Why is it that we're spending so much money and our outcomes are so bad?

What more can we be doing when it comes to chronic diseases instead?

Instead, he has spent so much of his time, with this focus on on vaccines.

You just saw the recommendations come out of the, of the committee meeting in mid September here, with with a change in, change in, in advice, not only with regards to the Covid vaccine, but with some of the, the early childhood vaccinations.

So, am I, am I disappointed with the, with the direction that he has taken with this?

Do I think that he didn't keep his commitment to me?

I don't know what he said to other members, but I know what he told me.

And he said my focus is not going to be on vaccine.

And, the I think the direction that we have have taken, in these, in these recent months, is one that has caused greater skepticism when it comes to, to vaccine recommendations.

And to your point, it goes to the trust issue, not just with regards to vaccines, but trust, in our, in our, in the, in the, in the health research and in the health health policy is probably a better way to put it, the health policy of this country.

And is there any way that senators can push back or rein that in somehow.

Yeah.

And and we we actually had, I think, a pretty, I think a pretty amazing hearing in the health committee, just several weeks ago, you will recall that, there was a woman who was, appointed to be, the the head of the centers, CMS and she was in, in the position confirmed and was in the position for less than a month when she was, asked to leave, by the secretary.

And what we learned, she she came as well as, one of the other, long term, doctors there at CMS.

She came before the committee to, to share with us what was going on within the department.

Yes.

And, and and in her words, she was basically she was basically told that, she needed to sign off on the recommendations from this newly, newly composed, health advisory, a vaccine panel.

Excuse me?

Even before even before the they wanted pre-approval that the data had been presented to her.

And in other words, she just needed to blindly follow whatever they said.

And she said that she would not do that.

And so whether she was asked to be asked to leave or or or fired directly, she is no longer there.

That kind of of, of a background about what is going on again, should not only concern all of us, and I don't care what your position is on on vaccines, but you should be worried if the head of your centers, for, for disease control, are are being told just follow the leader here.

Without without the the science and the, the full research behind it.

I think we should all be worried about.

All right, we're going to take another short break.

When we come back, we'll continue our discussion with Senator Lisa murkowski.

As talk of Alaska continues statewide.

Talk of Alaska is brought to you in part by your local public radio station.

When you choose your way, you're investing in more than a degree.

You're investing in your future.

Life doesn't always follow one path, and neither does your education.

With over 100 academic programs designed to meet real world needs and flexible online or in-person courses, UAS is built for where you are and where you're going.

Make your impact at UAA apply today.

This message, sponsored by the University of Alaska Anchorage, October 9th, is Pandas and Pans Awareness Day.

Did you know that a simple infection can give rise to medical disorders known as pandas and pans, featuring psychiatric symptoms, disordered eating, or tics?

Patients with these disorders usually have an abrupt onset of obsessive compulsive disorder and more northwest pandas pans Network is a nonprofit serving Alaska that can help.

For more information, visit.

Org.

This message sponsored by Northwest Panda's Patterns Network.

Welcome back to Talk of Alaska.

Senator Lisa murkowski is our guest.

Today.

We're going back to the phones now.

Frank is in unit Clete.

Hello, Frank.

Hi.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Morning.

Good morning.

Senator Lisa murkowski.

Good to hear your voice.

Good to hear yours, Frank.

Yeah.

Please get to your question, Frank.

We've got a lot of callers stacked up here.

Okay.

I'm asking you to oppose the Senate Joint Resolution 63.

Understand?

You have your mind made up being a terrible president, asking you to use the plan amendment process to fix whatever you find wrong with the plan will undermine planning of public lands and all over the nation.

And then the other question I had was, Essential Air Service.

The government shutdown has affected our service area for, you know, fleet.

It is a hub area and it's, affected our passenger service.

Thank you.

Frank.

Yeah.

Frank.

For listeners, the first, comment that he had was with regards to the, Central Yukon management, regional management plan.

There are several of these regional management plans that, that have gone through a great deal of process, certainly the central Yukon has I am, I am of the position that, what we need from that plan is, is a, a balance, to that, that I think we, we lost, in the prior administration.

And so, what I would like to see, out in the central, Yukon Regional area is, is again, that level of balance, the commitments that had been made previously to see those honored, on on Essential Air this is something that, Alaskans woke up to yesterday when we heard for the first time, from federal D.O.T.

that, as early as, the 12th of October, essential Air Service support, could be halted because they we are if the government has not yet reopened, we will have run out of of authorized and appropriated funding.

This is this is something that we've been able to figure out in, in previous shutdowns, through the use of additional funds that, come from what they call overflight overflight fees.

I have been in contact with the Secretary of Transport, last night.

And then today, he has shared that he fully understands the priority of essential Air Service in Alaska.

And in his words, he says, you know, we're working on creative AI, ways to to avoid, avoid a situation where we would see, particularly our smaller carriers, not be able to receive this support.

There are 67, communities in, in Alaska that are essential Air Service, communities.

There are 17 carriers, air carriers that provide essential air service.

So this is not only about getting people, from, you know, the to to, to to Anchorage for medical care.

It is it is about it's about health care.

It's about the ability to afford, going back and forth between our, our communities.

I think it's noteworthy that of all of the essential air, service, communities around the country, we are we are the ones that really define what it means when when we say essential.

There are of the 67 communities that receive subsidized air service, only six are connected to the road system.

When when I tell people back here what that means, they can't even comprehend what it means to be in a community where you you don't have a road, you you're not able to utilize boat, you might not be able, you know, maybe maybe you can get around in a, long snow machine ride in the wintertime.

But our reality is essential.

Air service is essential.

We are all over this.

The secretary is is working it, the delegation is working it.

And my hope is that you're not going to see a break in in, in, in any regularly scheduled service.

Couldn't the service run out of money by Sunday?

Right now, with the government still closed, that clock is ticking and we don't have very much time between now and the 12th to figure out how we're going to make sure that whether you're in, you're late, whether you're in Wrangell or whether you are in, a, you know, to look at, we have to make sure that people can, can, move about in our state.

So we're all over it.

Thank you.

Frank.

All right.

Alex in Palmer writes by email in a may hearing, you asked Secretary Kennedy about the status of the commercial fishing safety program at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, which was eliminated in the April 1st reduction in force.

Secretary Kennedy said he would work with your staff to ensure commercial fishing safety and health research and training would continue.

Can you give us an update on the status of the program and if it is still slated for termination, what are you doing to ensure the safety and health for Alaska's commercial fishermen remains a priority?

Yeah, and I appreciate the the, the listener asking this question, because Nash was targeted, by the administration early on my my concern.

And you're prompting me and I hope my, my staff's taking notes on these calls as well.

My concern is that it may be one where we have seen because it because it it was not supported as part of the president's, priorities that through this, this shut down, they would effectively work to, to eliminate that altogether.

Now, I, I'm kind of speaking out of school here because I don't have an update.

But one of the things that we did, we did go back and forth not only with Secretary Kennedy, but other, other, secretaries when we were talking about specific programs, whether it was in education or elsewhere.

If in fact it's an issue, say, for instance, with workforce safety, there are other programs, in other, in other departments where we would work to take that mission and, and build on it.

But the point that I made to the secretary was one that was pretty clear.

Our fisheries are some of the most dangerous occupations in the world.

And so making sure that we we have these safety precautions and protocols, are absolutely key.

I am I'm going to take the, the the liberty of still having the floor here before you ask another question, Lori, because, there we've heard from some concerns that given the shut down, the, NOAA will not be able to issue the permits for, for the crab season coming up.

They're due to be issued by the 15th of October.

We have confirmed as recently as yesterday that they do have the personnel in place to go ahead and to process those and that they are working on that.

So we are we are, being told that we shouldn't have to worry our crab fishermen about whether or not, those, those quota numbers are going to be coming out.

All right.

Thank you for that.

We're running out of time here.

We only have a couple more minutes.

President Trump says he isn't going after political enemies, but he installed a loyalist as U.S.

attorney in Northern Virginia to indict former FBI director James Comey.

Trump talks about prosecuting politicians who oppose him.

It seems like he wants revenge.

What do you think about him using the power of the state against political opponents?

I think it's wrong.

Just plain and simple.

Wrong.

With regards to situation, with James Comey, I, I made a statement that maybe got a little attention back here in Washington, DC, but when, when if you've got if, if if you have an individual who has, crossed a line done wrong and, and you've got, grounds for indictment, you know, that's the way our, our, our process is set up.

You allow for due process.

But it certainly appeared to me that when, when the president didn't get what he wanted, which was, was an indictment against the guy that he wanted to go after he got rid of, he got rid of that, that, that prosecutor and put in somebody else who basically gave him what he was looking for.

And then there's indictment.

Come down, comes down.

And now and now we're all watching.

We're going to be watching James Comey going forward.

That's that's not that's not how due process.

That's not how justice for all works around this country.

And so when when you have a campaign of political retribution as, as the, as the commander in chief, as the president of this country, that is, that is that is not right.

It is not who we are.

It is just not.

President Trump is challenging the independence of the Federal Reserve Board.

He talked about firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and did fire one of the board's governors, Lisa Cook, although a judge has stopped that for now.

The federal Reserve has acted independently of administrations to avoid political influence.

What is at risk here, Senator, if the president is successful in shaping the reserve board in the way that he wants.

Well, I think we should be concerned about, that, and I had an opportunity just a few weeks ago to, to to say no, the Federal Reserve needs to be independent.

It needs to be, free from that political, political influence, if you will.

The president had named a an individual, to fill a vacancy.

It wasn't Lisa Cook's, vacancy because she has challenged that, and I think rightly so.

But he wanted to, nominate and he did nominate an individual who, well, he had qualifications.

He continues to serve on the president's Economic Advisory Council and in fact, is the head of the president's Economic Advisory Council.

And he has indicated to us all that he intends to stay in that position, serving the president well while serving at the at the Federal Reserve.

And I said I felt that that was improper, that that was that was too close the situation and that he should if he really wanted to serve.

On the, on the, on the board of the feds, then he should step down from his position as, as as an economic advisor to the president.

He did not do so.

And so I voted against him.

To me, it's it is it is as much about, being free from that bias, but also being free from the appearance of that.

And you can't convince me that if you're on the president's economic advisory Board that you can be truly independent when you're sitting over here in this confirmed spot as on the fence.

All right.

Thank you to our guest today, Senator, U.S.

Senator Lisa murkowski was on the line with us.

She does have a new book out called Far From Home and Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, DC.

And we have an open invitation to Senator Dan Sullivan and Congressman Nick Begich to come on talk of Alaska as well, thanks to our engineer, Chris Hyde, our producers, Madeline Rose, our editors.

Any fight and on the phones, avoiding Wesley Early helped us out.

I'm Lori Townsend, thanks for listening.

Talk of Alaska is a production of Alaska Public Media which is solely responsible for its content.

Views expressed are those of the participants and not necessarily those of Alaska Public Media, the station, or its underwriters.

Today's program is available online at Alaska public.org.

This is Alaska Public Media.